James DiEugenio

Is the following summary correct on the charges Manafort was convicted of? Its from USA Today. WASHINGTON – A jury convicted Paul Manafort – Donald Trump's former campaign chairman – on eight counts of bank and tax fraud Tuesday.

Here is another victim of Kirk's sweetie pie: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-honduras-coup-memoirs_us_56e34161e4b0b25c91820a08 After you read this you might understand about that caravan.

BTW, I think Kirk forgot what happened to Gaddafi, and what HRC said about it afterward as Libya sunk into utter chaos. But she is really a sweetie isn't she?

Did I ask you this question Kirk? Why would I? I mean you did not even know that Kamala Harris covered up the murder of Bobby Kennedy. So what does that say about your information database?

Denny, no apologies necessary. What I am trying to say is that a lot of ruck is being produced today. Due to self publishing, plus some houses like Trine Day and Skyhorse will publish anything on JFK. I am very disappointed in this trend myself. Therefore, i appreciate books like AAF, and the first edition of Crossfire since they have stood up over time. Many of these new books should have never been published. BTW, Crossfire really was a solid book. Most people did not understand that since its footnotes were skimpy and there was only a partial index in the first printing. But I talked to Jim about something in it once and he had files and notes on everything in the book.

Is this really true? Where has it been reported?

Paul: Even if John is correct, there are other witnesses that say that Phillips used the name of Maurice Bishop. Phillips was also suspected of being in Banister's office for the Cuban exile telethon in 1961. He also ran the the anti FPCC campaign along with McCord. He was also involved in the whole MC imbroglio. About which he lied his head off. And he was part of the active cover up about that issue. Which he was smoking 3 cigarettes about when questioned. Morales was running Oswald in New Orleans, and after? Where the heck does that come from, Tommy Graves?

Jeff: I think there is some truth in that. But I will wait for Mueller's report before I make any ultimate conclusion about the subject.

I am totally in understanding with Mr. Gordon here. This is why very few, if any, ROKCers are here today. The only one I can think of is Vanessa Loney. Secondly, its one thing to argue with someone on this forum about certain pieces of evidence. But there are rules one has to uphold in that arguing. When one goes elsewhere, the rules are usually not being upheld. So one is free to vent at will--while still being a member here. And I also agree with the proxy rule. Its one thing to quote from a book or an essay. Its quite another to use yourself as a funnel to someone who has been banned. We just had this issue come up a rather short time ago when the same person was using Jim Hargrove.

Denny: I am not so sure about calling those texts like Crossfire and AAF outdated. IMO, a lot of the most recent stuff on the JFK case is pretty crappy. I am actually thinking of writing an essay on that specific topic since I think its really debilitating to the case. But one definition of the term classic, is that the work has stood the test of time. In my view, the Meagher book is a classic. And it would be made to order for this audience. I still use Meagher in my current critiques. One reason I think her book has stood up is this: she really did read the entire 26 volumes. A lot of people say they did, but she really did. Crossfire, the first edition-- as I said a long time ago--is a really nice desk compendium which covers almost all aspects of the case. You could print out a few pages on each topic to kick start a discussion.

Adam: She deals with that also, on p. 371. To put it mildly, its highly unlikely.

FWIW Jim, I think its a good rule. I don't think members of this forum should be allowed to trash it outside the forum. In intel parlance, this is called Blowback. BTW Jim, from what I can see of this, he broke two rules.

Joe: Bill Hicks was one of the very few stand ups who would touch the JFK case and portray it as it really was. Mort Sahl was one of the very few others, but they torched him when he got too active. And no one was going to shut Hicks up about it. I like it here when he mentions the complaint "well it happened so long ago" and he replied, "So did Jesus Christ and we are still talking about him!" For reasons I will not go into, compared to Hicks, Maher is a pretentious fraud.

You know something Kirk, sometimes I wonder why you are here. Do you know anything about these cases wider than what is on this board? Because some of us actually do. And we work on them and we interact with people who are actually in the arena trying to do something about them in a political and/or legal way. That's because we think something went seriously wrong with America after Bobby Kennedy was murdered. That tolled the bell for the sixties, which was a decade I really liked. This is what I wrote about in my introduction to Lisa Pease's fine book, A Lie too Big to Fail. Have you read it? I doubt it. If you had you would not write such stilly stuff as above. Kamala Harris was the AG of California when Bill Pepper and Laurie Dusek presented their application for an evidentiary hearing to reopen the RFK case. She did not need to oppose the motion. She could have granted it and let the evidence be heard in court and let it stand or fail on its merits. She did not do that. She vigorously opposed the motion before the court. But she actually did something even worse than that. She did not know the facts of the case very well. So she got some help in writing it. I will not divulge all the details of that exercise. Its all there is Lisa's book, which you should read sometime. (pp. 501-02) Now, if you think that playing a prominent role in the cover up of Bobby Kennedy's murder is an attractive attribute for someone to lead America and the Democratic party forward after the Clintons and Obama, then I guess we have some severe differences about what that party should be about. I don't think we need any more cover up artists in the White House, or someone who does not understand what happened to America in 1968. And BTW, if you like Bill Maher, then that is another difference. I much preferred this guy:

Yes it was very telling. It shows some people remember. Here is a good story on the Integrity Initiative. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/10/covert-british-military-smear-machine-moving-into-us/

I was just kidding Rich.

I try not to read Politico too much, they are clearly anti liberal and anti JFK; they printed like three articles by that disinformation artist Shenon. The Integrity Initiative was a bombshell was it not? One of the things they were pushing was the whole Russia Gate thing.

Let me add another point about the idea of the state subsidizing a service. Many decades ago, when I attended college, I never paid a dollar for it. In fact, the first two years, I never saw a tuition bill. And I was going to a private Catholic college. When I would tell my students about this, they could not believe it. But then I also told them that in the sixties, you could go to UCLA for free. And you could. The guy who changed this in California was Ronnie Ray-gun, you know, Mr Supply Side Economics. He was the first governor who charged tuition for UCLA. Then, when he became president, he installed that jerk Bill Bennett as Secretary of Education and the assault on student aid really went into high gear. Today, unless you come from a rich family, its quite difficult to go to a good private, or even a public college and not come away with large debts. If you go into a profession, you are talking six figures in student loans. Many people, including myself, look at these limits on aid as a way of stemming upward social mobility. Or to put it in stark terms, keep them in East LA. This is why I liked the Sanders ideas on higher education. This is another way of looking at it: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/

As the estimable British researcher Martin Hay once said, Livingstone's Killing the Truth is one of the ten worst books ever written on the JFK case. According to Bart, the unnamed source Harry used for that piece of junk was Rothermel. In Joan Mellen's book on DeMohrenschildt, Our Man In Haiti, she makes a good case that Rothermel was CIA. (pp. 335-378) In their internal memos, even the NY Times thought this was the case. This concept of the CIA utilizing the Texas oil barons for what Jim Garrison termed as "false sponsors", goes back to the whole Farewell America hoax. Which I was at pains to expose in Destiny Betrayed, second edition. (pp. 281-83) Bill Boxley was one of the main purveyors of that to Garrison. And according to Weisberg, who helped blow it up, a source that Lamarr and de Vosjoli used in penning that fairy tale was Rothermel. Harry was being played like a violin. If he had done his research on what happened in New Orleans, he would not have been so easy to dupe.

The thing is Rob, that in this country its OK to have socialism for the wealthy. Because I think that is what happened in the 2007-08 Wall Street/ Stock market crash. But somehow when you talk about universal health care, that was a no no. If you recall, the Clintons took that off the table. I could never understand why. Socialism is simply when the government owns and operates certain industries and/or services. This is done to keep the market honest and open. I sure wish we had one oil company like that. I mean does anyone think that gasoline really costs 3.49 a gallon? But the middle class got steamrolled a long time ago in this country. Robert Reich found that out pretty quickly under Clinton when a congressman told him that directly when he was Secretary of Labor. The days when you will have a Democrat go on TV and denounce the steel companies for rigging prices are long one. But hopefully, people like AOC and Bernie can bring them back.

David: PM me and I will give you my landline and you can put me on speaker phone. Or Skype me in.

Chris, go to the volumes. They are at History Matters and MFF. GO through the contents and you will find a more thorough discussion.

The latter was done in the HSCA volumes. I don't know if the raw data was included. Jeff Carter should know.

There was no way I would vote for Harris or Gillibrand. But now I have my doubts about Warren and Brown also. Let us push open the Overton Window as to what its possible to talk about.

BTW, in reading an analysis of the Steele Dossier, i read something that surprised me. Steele had not been to Russia before he wrote it for a period of two decades? I mean was there a reason that he did not go to Russia to do his field investigation in person? Would the Russians have denied him entry or a passport? To me that is a red flag. Makes it even harder to think that the FBI took it as seriously as they did.